Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources
Citation | 880 F. Supp. 416 |
Decision Date | 21 March 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4:93-2768-22. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | The WILSON GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. QUORUM HEALTH RESOURCES, INC., successor to HCA Management Company, Inc., and Hospital Corporation of America, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Saunders McKenzie Bridges, Lawrence B. Orr, Julie Berly Ervin, Bridges, Orr, Derrick & Ervin, Florence, SC, for plaintiff.
Stuart M. Andrews, Jr., Daniel J. Westbrook, Jonathon P. Dyer, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L., Columbia, SC, for defendant.
This is an action based on three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act; and (3) Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") violations, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 et seq. The matter is before the court on (1) Defendant Quorum Health Resources, Inc.'s (hereinafter "Quorum") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (2) Defendant Hospital Corporation of America's (hereinafter "HCA") Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Plaintiff The Wilson Group, Inc.'s (hereinafter "Wilson Group") Motion to Amend Complaint. On July 20, 1994, both Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on September 27, 1994, and took the motions under advisement. On November 14, 1994, Wilson Group filed a motion to amend the complaint to allege a negligence cause of action against Quorum for matters arising from November 12, 1991 forward. For the reasons set forth below, the court: (1) grants in part and denies in part Quorum's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (2) grants in part and denies in part HCA's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) denies Wilson Group's Motion to Amend Complaint.
In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must look beyond the pleadings and determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The court must determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Ins., 477 U.S. 242, 251-53, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511-13, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If Defendants carry their burden of showing there is an absence of evidence to support a claim, then Plaintiff must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or admissions on file that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for Plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. An issue of fact concerns "material" facts only if establishment of the fact might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing substantive law. Id. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of a cause of action necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. Moreover, production of a "mere scintilla of evidence" in support of an essential element will not forestall summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. at 2511-12.
In other words, summary judgment should be granted in those cases in which it is perfectly clear that no genuine issue of material fact remains unresolved and inquiry into the facts is unnecessary to clarify the application of the law. McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees, 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir.1992); Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979). In making its determination under this standard, this court must draw all permissible inferences from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356-57, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); McKinney, 955 F.2d at 928.
The following factual background is based on the current record before this court for purposes of summary judgment drawing all permissible inferences from the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
This action arises out of a twelve-year contractual relationship between Wilson Group and Defendants. Wilson Group is a South Carolina corporation that owns and operates hospitals and clinics in South Carolina. Defendant Quorum is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee and Defendant HCA is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee.
Wilson Group and Quorum began their contractual relationship on October 1, 1980 when they signed a five-year management agreement in which Quorum undertook to manage Wilson Groups' facilities.1 HCA signed the agreement as guarantor.2 On October 1, 1985, Wilson Group and Quorum entered into another five-year management agreement in which Quorum again undertook to manage Wilson Group's facilities.3 HCA was not a party to this agreement.
In a letter dated June 13, 1986, John L. Wilson, Executive Director of Wilson Clinic and Hospital4, wrote to Mr. Creighton Likes at Quorum:
In November 1986, Wilson Group received its consolidated financial statements and schedules and auditors' report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986 from its accountant, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. The consolidated balance sheet showed the Wilson facilities' net accounts receivable to be $1,230,558. The accounts receivable for the previous fiscal year had been $1,266,725. The auditors' report did not indicate whether this amount of accounts receivable was unusual.
At the November 25, 1986 Executive Committee meeting, James Worrell, Quorum's new financial controller of Wilson Group facilities, presented the Controller's Report. Mr. Worrell noted "that all facilities were doing well for the first month of the new fiscal year, showing good overall utilization trends and strong financial results." At the following month's Executive meeting, Mr. Worrell gave his report, noting that "bad debt appears to be moderating, giving the hospital a positive variance with respect to budgeted net income."
Due to the large accumulation and age of Wilson Group's accounts receivable, Quorum retained Ray Jordan, an external consultant. Mr. Jordan was to analyze the accounts receivable and determine how to improve collection efforts. There is no indication that Wilson Group requested that Mr. Jordan be retained. Wilson Group, however, had begun an in-house collection service at the Wilson Clinic and Hospital a few months earlier.
The next significant series of events between Wilson Group and Quorum began in 1990. At the July 1990 Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Worrell gave the Controller's Report noting that At the August, 1990 Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Worrell again gave the Controller's Report noting that "accounts receivable were being worked aggressively throughout the organization."
In September 1990, Mr. Worrell disclosed to John L. Wilson that he was having vendors' checks held. In December 1990, Mr. Worrell informed John L. Wilson ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc.
...or intentional breach of contract, without more, does not constitute a violation of the SCUTPA. Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Res., Inc., 880 F.Supp. 416, 426 (D.S.C.1995) (citing Ardis v. Cox, 314 S.C. 512, 431 S.E.2d 267, 271 (App.1993)); see also S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Silks, 295 S.C. ......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Employee Resource Management
...non-breaching party knew or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the breach. See The Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, 880 F.Supp. 416, 424 (D.S.C.1995). ERM argued prior to trial that Liberty Mutual knew or should have known of ERM's breaches in 1994, thus,......
-
Hyman v. Ford Motor Co.
...are governed by the same principles of adequacy of consideration that apply to other contracts. Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, Inc., 880 F.Supp. 416, 425 (D.S.C. 1995); Lowery v. Callahan, 210 S.C. 300, 42 S.E.2d 457, 458 (1947). Like any contract, a release given without co......
-
Kain v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Kain)
...to interrogatories or admissions on file that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Res., Inc., 880 F. Supp. 416, 420 (D.S.C. 1995) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324-25, 106 S. Ct. 2548). "A genuine issue of fact exists when there is s......
-
Table of Cases
...§5:25 Will v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 352, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006), §12:01.4 Wilson Group v. Quorum Health Resources , 880 F.Supp. 416 (D. S.C. 1995), Form 7-23 Wilson v. Aargon Agency, Inc. , 262 F.R.D. 561 (D.Nev. 2010), §7:03 Wilson v. AM General Corp ., 167 F.3d 1114 (7th ......
-
Motions
...motion to dismiss, then the amendment should be denied as futile (footnotes omitted). Accord, Wilson Group vs. Quorum Health Resources , 880 F.Supp. 416 (D. S.C. 1995) (denying motion to amend complaint “because it would be futile,” insofar as the proposed amendment sought to import a tort ......